"This is the latest example of gay marriage advocates and the media desperately attempting to push the false claim that Republicans support gay marriage." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

Washington, D.C. — After the New York Times was forced to retract its false claim that former Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave had signed on to an Anti-Proposition 8 brief to the Supreme Court, Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage responded:

"Congresswoman Musgrave is a hero for marriage and was the lead sponsor of the original Federal Marriage Amendment in 2003. The fact that the New York Times would falsely claim that she now supports repealing a law to protect marriage without even checking with her shows the desperation of some in the media to push this absurd notion that Republicans support the repeal of laws passed by Americans to protect marriage."

Brown continued: "Just last week a Human Rights Campaign-led campaign was forced to remove a picture and quote of former First Lady Laura Bush after they used her reputation without permission to push the untrue idea that she supports the repeal of laws protecting marriage. This is the latest example of gay marriage advocates and the media desperately attempting to create the illusion that Republicans support gay marriage."

Brown went on to say, "Of the much-touted so-called 'Republicans' named in the New York Times article, only two are currently holding seats in Congress. These two lawmakers, Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York, may claim to be Republicans but they are certainly not conservatives — and NOM will be sure to let their constituents know that these two office holders have abandoned the Republican platform which is strongly pro-marriage."

Brown concluded: "If Republicans actually supported gay marriage — an absurd claim — the Human Rights Campaign would not have to spend millions of dollars claiming they do and the New York Times would not have to falsely claim the support of stalwart pro-marriage Republican figures such as Marilyn Musgrave."

Correction: A previous version of this press release claimed that the New York Times article about Marilyn Musgrave was "above the fold", but in reality the article never appeared in print. We apologize for the error.

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

"We applaud the U.S. Catholic Bishops for leading by example. Now is the time for people of all faiths to commit to marching for marriage!" — Brian Brown, NOM president —

Washington, D.C. — Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, welcomed a new letter sent to every Catholic bishop in America encouraging them to support and promote the March for Marriage (http://www.marriagemarch.org/) on March 26 in Washington, DC. The letter was sent by Bishop Kevin Rhoades, Chairman of the USCCB's Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth, and by Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, Chairman of the Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage. The letter reads in part:

"We are grateful for this opportunity to express support for the Marriage March and to encourage participation in this event. We realize that the march will occur during the solemn days of Holy Week, but we ask that you consider promoting this event in your diocese and parishes and encourage participation where possible.

The march will be a significant opportunity to promote and defend marriage and the good of our nation, to pray for our Supreme Court justices, and to stand in solidarity with people of good will. It also complements well the bishops’ Call to Prayer for Life, Marriage, and Religious Liberty (http://www.usccb.org/life-marriage-liberty) that was approved last November. This is a decisive time for marriage in our country. We are deeply grateful for any support you can offer for this march."

"We welcome the active participation and support of the Catholic Church in the march," said Brown. "Our coalition on behalf of marriage includes a great many people and groups representing a diverse array of faith traditions, including evangelicals, Baptists, Presbyterians, and members of the Church of God in Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We welcome people of every faith --and no faith at all-- to join us in protecting the unique bond of marriage, the only institution that provides children with the mother and father they deserve. Those who believe in the protection of religious liberty as we do are also wise to stand strong for marriage at this decisive time."

Previous to this letter circulating, the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, which is under the leadership of Archbishop Charles Chaput, announced they would be sponsoring five buses to the March for Marriage. Brown added: "We expect and welcome more pledges of participation from other Catholic dioceses on the east coast and across the country. Now is the time for Catholics and people of all faiths to commit to marching for marriage!"

The entire letter of Bishop Rhoades and Archbishop Cordileone can be read on the USCCB website here.

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Ryan Anderson, co-author of What is Marriage? One Man, One Woman: A Defense writes for the Heritage Foundation's Foundry blog:

Some former officials in the Republican Party are urging the Supreme Court to redefine marriage for the nation. But support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman is essential to American—and conservative—principles. Indeed, nothing could be less conservative than urging an activist court to redefine an essential institution of civil society.

As my co-authors and I argue in our new book, What Is Marriage?, and in the amicus brief we filed with the Supreme Court, marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, on the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and on the social reality that children need a mother and a father. Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes.

Marriage predates government. It is the fundamental building block of all human civilization. All Americans, especially conservatives, should respect this crucial institution of civil society. This is why 41 states, with good reason, affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman.

...Redefining marriage is a direct and demonstrated threat to religious freedom that marginalizes those who affirm marriage as the union of a man and a woman. We have already seen this in neighboring Canada and right here in places such as Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.

Supporters of same-sex marriage hope for a boost this week when dozens of high-profile Republicans, many no longer in office, submit their legal argument to the Supreme Court on why gays and lesbians should be allowed to wed, bucking their party's platform in a move that one who had a change of heart on the issue said would “strengthen our nation as a whole.”

... The legal brief was dismissed by the National Organization for Marriage, which on Monday pledged $500,000 to defeat Republican lawmakers supporting any law to allow same-sex marriage inMinnesota, a state considering such legislation.

“None of these people are actively in politics. They are not running for office because they know … supporting same-sex marriage will end your career if you’re a Republican,” said Brian Brown, NOM's president. “There’s overwhelming support for traditional marriage in the Republican Party, that’s why it’s part of the party platform, and any attempt by the establishment to redefine marriage and redefine what it means to be a conservative will mean the death of the Republican party.”

In a week where a bill legalizing same-sex marriage is expected to be introduced at the state Capitol, National Organization for Marriage President Brian Brown said GOP lawmakers who support it will face electoral repercussions.

"We are committing a half a million dollars to the effort to support Democrats who support traditional marriage and to oppose Republicans who betray principle and their constituents," Brown said on MPR's Policast on Tuesday.

... NOM spent about $2 million trying to pass a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as between one man and one woman in Minnesota. Voters rejected the amendment in November.

Overall more than $18 million was spent on the amendment campaign. Opponents spent more than $12 million while supporters spent about half that.

"The campaign was won by simply telling lies," Brown said. "One of the lies was that there was no threat of same-sex marriage, that's now coming home to roost."

Brown said his group supports another push for a constitutional amendment defining marriage in Minnesota.

"Clearly, Minnesota needs a constitutional amendment. The reality is that without it, judges could redefine marriage," Brown said. "In Minnesota, unfortunately, the amendment did not pass. But you still need an amendment; we will still push for it."

Brian Brown, President of NOM, on the GOP grassroots mobilizing to unseat one of the two Republican representatives in Congress who recently came out against the Republican platform which pledges to protect marriage:

Only two members of Congress were among the several dozen Republicans who signed on to a legal brief asserting the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, and one of them was upstate New York congressman Richard Hanna.

Hanna's support for the brief comes in defiance of last fall's election results, when three of the four Republicans in the State Senate who voted in favor of same-sex marriage were defeated at the polls. And, in the eyes of same-sex marriage opponents, what Hanna did was even worse.

"It's much more egregious," said Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage.

"To sign on to this completely novel and erroneous understanding of our law is an embarrassment to him, and obviously they should be primaried," he added. (Capital New York)

Two national organizations dedicated to preserving God’s design for marriage will unite next month to lead a Washington, D.C., march. The event will take place March 26, the same day the U.S. Supreme Court begins to hear oral arguments in cases challenging a national and state definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and the Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP), the March for Marriage provides an opportunity for supporters to take a stand for the institution and religious freedom.

“Our march will reflect the unity and diversity of the pro-marriage movement,” said NOM President Brian Brown. “Men and women of every walk of life, every color and creed have professed from time immemorial that to make a marriage, you need a man and a woman.”

Five busloads of Catholics who believe marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman are scheduled to travel to Washington, D.C., on March 26 to participate in Marriage March 2013 from the National Mall to the Supreme Court followed by a rally on the National Mall.

March 26 is the date the United States Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments to determine if California’s Proposition 8, passed by the state’s voters in 2008 to protect the sanctity of marriage, is constitutional or not.

The march is sponsored by the National Organization for Marriage, alongside a broad coalition of pro-family organizations and groups.

The archdiocesan effort is being organized by the Office for Life, Family and Laity and has been endorsed by Archbishop Charles Chaput.

Plenty of local (and national) press have taken note of our announcement yesterday that we are pledging $500,000 to protect marriage in Minnesota -- here are a few of the outlets that picked up our press release:

The Pioneer Press: "The National Organization for Marriage says it will spend $500,000 to defeat any Republican legislator who votes to legalize gay marriage in Minnesota."

The Associated Press: "One Republican senator, Branden Petersen, already says he'll support it. But the National Organization of Marriage says that's a "career-ending" vote for Republicans. The group has helped fund conservative primary challengers to Republicans in other states who voted in favor same-sex marriage."

StarTribune: "The National Organization for Marriage noted that they helped "take out” three of four New York GOP Senators who voted to legalize same-sex marriage in that state “by repeatedly informing their constituents of their betrayal on marriage.”

Salon: "...And while election outcomes are determined by a number of factors, there is no doubt that the GOP losses are partly due to organizations like NOM putting their financial muscle behind punishing lawmakers who vote with their conscience."

The Atlantic: "...Just yesterday, National Organization for Marriage announced on their website that they would "do everything in our power to defeat any Republican who votes in favor of same-sex marriage." They even boast about ending the careers of three of the four Republicans who backed gay marriage in New York State's Senate."

Laura Bush and "Inevitability"

By Frank Schubert

Dear Marriage Supporter,

In my email last week, I wrote about the "big lie" that same-sex marriage is supposedly "inevitable." By telling us that it's inevitable we'll lose, gay marriage advocates are pursuing a strategy designed to encourage our surrender.

One of the tactics that homosexual advocates have taken to advance their "inevitability" strategy in recent months is aimed right at a core element of our base of supporters — people who consider themselves Republicans. Just last week a coalition of gay groups including the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) began an advertising campaign touting statements from various former GOP officials like Colin Powell and Dick Cheney.

Perhaps Laura Bush, who was also featured in the ad from the mis-named "Respect for Marriage" coalition, didn't get the memo on inevitability. Immediately after learning that she had been featured in their ad, she demanded that her image and comments be removed. The HRC coalition had little choice but to comply.

This isn't the first time that Republicans have reacted when told it's time for them to act like "progressive" Democrats and support redefining marriage. Republican voters trounced two U.S. Senate candidates who took that position — Tom Campbell in California and Bill Binnie in New Hampshire. Last year they forced from office three of the four Republican state Senators in New York who were responsible for the passage of gay marriage in that state. And now in Illinois there's a spirited grassroots effort underway to remove GOP Chair Pat Brady from his position as a result of urging Republican legislators to support homosexual marriage — a position that runs directly contrary to their stated party platform.

A few years ago the HRC would regularly claim that nobody ever lost elective office for supporting same-sex marriage. Such an outlandish statement was false even back then, but they clearly can't credibly make such a statement any longer. Even the media has pointed out that supporting gay marriage is likely a career-ending move for a Republican, as was made clear in this recent AP story from a couple of weeks ago:

According to roll call votes, in the eight times nationwide that state legislatures voted for gay marriage, just 47 Republicans bucked the party line out of many hundreds who voted against it.

Of those 47 Republicans who voted yes starting in 2009, 21 are in office today.

The HRC hopes that Republicans don't notice things like Laura Bush, Pat Brady, Tom Campbell, Bill Binnie or any of the state senators from New York. But we hope you'll notice.

We've got a tough job to prevail in the battle for true marriage, but neither side has any claim to "inevitability." It's up to us to win the debate by working hard to advance this true and just cause. Will you please help us today?

Frank Schubert is NOM's National Political Director. He managed the successful marriage campaigns in California, Maine and North Carolina and is one of the nation's leading strategists for advancing social issues.

P.S. Now is the time to stand up for marriage — the Supreme Court is about to rule on two monumental cases and same-sex marriage activists are aggressively advancing their radical agenda in multiple states, including Illinois, Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico and Ohio. They're working on so many fronts at precisely the time the United States Supreme Court is considering the most important case of our generation — hoping to sell their "inevitability" myth at this most critical time for marriage. Won't you please stand with us and help expose their "inevitability" lie by making a donation today?

It's coming down to crunch time for marriage in Illinois, and it's critical that you and I act NOW.

I'll keep this short, so as not to take much of your time, but please take 5 minutes to read this message and then contact your state representative right away.

* * * * *

Attend Today's Hearing in Springfield

After passing the Senate earlier this month, a same-sex marriage bill — under the Orwellian title of "Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act" — will be heard in the House Executive Committee today.

If you can make it to Springfield, your presence will make a powerful statement, regardless of whether you choose to testify before the committee. NOM's own Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, head of the Ruth Institute, will be testifying. Please come early to meet Dr. Morse, and bring friends! Legislators need to know how much their constituents care about protecting marriage.

Representative Rita Mayfield, a Democrat from Waukegan, has announced that she will be tallying emails received for and against same-sex marriage, and she will take that information seriously into account as she weighs her vote.

Please take a moment right now to send Rep. Mayfield a short messaging asking her to OPPOSE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. Her email address is [email protected].

"Marriage is not a partisan issue, and NOM does not hesitate to oppose weak Republicans and support strong Democrats."— Brian Brown, NOM president —

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) today pledged to spend $500,000 against any Republican legislator who votes in favor of redefining marriage in Minnesota, and will support any Democrat who votes to preserve marriage. NOM's Minnesota state political fund was the largest contributor to the proposed Minnesota Marriage Amendment (giving over $2.2 million) and has helped defeat virtually every Republican who has supported gay marriage, including three Republican state Senators in New York in 2012.

"Republicans like Branden Petersen don't realize that not only is voting to redefine marriage a terrible policy, it is also a career-ending vote for a Republican," said Brian Brown. "NOM will do everything in our power to defeat any Republican who votes in favor of same-sex marriage. Legislators need look no further than what happened to GOP Senators in New York. Four of them were responsible for passing gay marriage. We helped take out three of those Senators by repeatedly informing their constituents of their betrayal on marriage. They are now out of office. We will not hesitate to do the same thing in Minnesota."

Same-sex marriage narrowly passed the New York Senate with the help of seven Senators who flipped their vote, including four Republicans. Of those four GOP Senators, three have been removed from politics. One was defeated in a primary, another was defeated in the general election and a third was forced to retire rather than face reelection. NOM was instrumental in all three outcomes, funding billboards, mailers, telephone calls and grassroots activities. Additionally, NOM campaigned against a sitting Democrat Senator, Shirley Huntley, who changed her vote and helped defeat her in a Democratic primary. NOM ultimately supported three Democratic candidates for Senator in New York, and helped elect two of those to office.

"We urge Democrats in the Minnesota Legislature to vote their values, and not what their party bosses tell them," Brown said. "Standing for true marriage is the right thing to do for Minnesota families, and especially for children. The fact is that Minnesota children, and all children, have a right to expect laws that promote them being raised by a mother and father. We will support those legislators, Democrats and Republicans alike, who vote for Minnesota family values, just as we have done in other states. Marriage is not a partisan issue, and NOM does not hesitate to oppose weak Republicans and support strong Democrats."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), [email protected], or Jen Campbell (x145), [email protected], at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

Attorneys representing House Republicans in litigation against the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court are asserting that the Justice Department lacks standing to participate in the lawsuit.

The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, under the direction of U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, makes the argument in a 38-page brief filed on Friday in response to the court’s jurisdictional questions on standing in the challenge to Section 3 of DOMA, known as Windsor v. United States.

BLAG argues the Justice Department lacks standing because the Obama administration received the result it wanted from lower courts — including the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals — striking down DOMA.

“It obtained the precise relief it believed was appropriate based on the precise theory (heightened scrutiny) it advocated,” the brief states. “The executive can fare no better before this Court. While this Court’s affirmance would have a greater precedential impact, the executive cannot ground its appellate standing on a desire for an opinion with the identical effect on this case and controversy, but a broader precedential scope for other cases.” (The Washington Blade)